Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday July 03, 2010 @03:59PM
from the this-is-cooler-than-unredacting-pdfs dept.

Jamie points out this excellent piece, well timed for America's Independence Day, that says spectrographic evidence has established that the one word Thomas Jefferson fully blotted out from an early draft of the Declaration of Independence was not "resident," or "patriot," but rather "subject." This, he replaced with "citizen."

I guess we'll have to add this "doesn't properly cnesor documents" will have to be listed to the other UNFAIR criticisms modern idiots like to level against Thomas Jefferson.

And yes I know you were just joking but I'm making a point - People level criticisms against Jefferson that, in his day and age, were considered acceptable behavior. Like not allowing women the vote, or only limited suffrage to property owners. People should be judged by their own culture not by 2010 US culture.

In our current society the most important label is "victim." Once you or your somewhat defined demographic group can achieve the official label of victim, the largess of the non-victims (also known as taxpayers) is yours for the grovelling. Keep in mind that both the lawmakers who bestow victimhood and the bureaucracy take their cut from what is extorted from the taxpayers as their part of the squeeze.

BTW, this isn't limited to the United States. Lots of countries have made official victimhood the most d

BTW, this isn't limited to the United States. Lots of countries have made official victimhood the most desirable status one can aspire to. Unfortunately, their additional experience with leeching taxpayers to pay their victims has created a dearth of taxpayers. Funny how that happens.

If you're referring to welfare states, they are a lot closer to financial solvency than the US, which prides itself on its can-do, American dream, pull-youself-up-with-your-own-bootstraps anti-welfare spirit, but is saddled with debt unimaginable in a place like Finland or Sweden.

Well, debt is what happens when you go around empire-building. How many wars are Finland and Sweden involved in? How many military bases worldwide do they have? We're building a billion dollar embassy in England, and the one in Iraq is bigger than the vatican. It isn't the "pull-youself-up-with-your-own-bootstraps anti-welfare spirit" that is killing the american dream. It is that our nations rulers also think they need to rule the world (both parties). All empires come to end; of course the US was never supposed to be an empire.

I was thinking of the insolvent welfare states such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.

The problem of Greece has a lot to do with corruption in the minority of people who work in administration and very little to do with a welfare state, which is pretty negligible, actually. And taxation is fairly low there as well. Looks like you haven't read any more about the problem than the stereotypes posted around news sites recently, which blamed a generally mythical lazy, non-working, early-retiring Greek people for everything.

Every time, really, unless you make your intentions known beforehand and the authorities actually respect them once known. That is why the new NY law (I think it's NY) is so insidious: it changes the default option to "yes" which puts the onus on you to specifically go on record as opting-out, and means that any problems with the record keeping will mean you could donate anyway.

Then they can opt-out. The fact is *most* people *don't* have "religious objects or objects to the organ donation system itself", so why the hell should the law assume they do, particularly if it means more lives saved due to an increase in available organs?

No matter how angry you get, your handwaving won't increase the soundness of your argument. It is compulsory to follow an opt out procedure if you don't want your organs to be harvested, therefore the organ donation system is compulsory. You must get involved with the system whether you want to or not.

By contrast, "compulsory" and "opt in" are likely to be mutually exclusive because you can do nothing and find yourself facing no obligations. The system adds no compulsion.

The NY donation system doesn't punish you for not being an organ donor.

The NY donation system punishes you if you do not have the ability and opportunity to learn the donation system and take the time to follow the appropriate bureaucratic procedure to opt out. It does this by harvesting organs from your dead body without your consent.

Similarly, you gave my sheep consent to graze on your lawn because you didn't sign the opt-out form on my desk and advertised in the appropriate basement.

You, Sir, ought to start a business as a spammer. According to part 419 of the Universal Spam Code, it's moral if you put a genuine opt-out link at the bottom, rite?

Is it within the realm of possibility that some nobody might be allowed to die so that his organs can be harvested for a prominent somebody? Ever think of that? Well - people who trust politicians, celebrities, the wealthy, and all medical personnel would never think of this possibility. Of course, I might call such people "gullible", or "tools", or - well, you get the idea.

"Is it within the realm of possibility that some nobody might be allowed to die so that his organs can be harvested for a prominent somebody?"

Why stop with prominent somebodies? In "The Jigsaw Man [wikipedia.org]" (spoiler warning on the link), Larry Niven has an interesting take on the potential for unexpected side-effects in a system where organ transplant is perfected but organ supply remains scarce.

...And really why shouldn't it be that way? Lets face it, unless you have some religious opposition to it, and most religions welcome it, its a -good- thing for society, after all, unless you plan on returning as a vampire/zombie or want to be cryogenicly frozen for resurrection at a later date, you aren't going to be using them, but there is someone who could.

Yes, there is always the question of letting you die to harvest your organs when your in the hospital, but wouldn't they neglect other patents wh

I prefer not to have my corpse desecrated and mutilated post mortem. It certainly doesn't matter after I die but having the comfort while living that my corpse will not be desecrated and mutilated is quite comforting indeed.

Nature performs its own desecration. It's called rot. Or incineration. Or consumption. Any way you choose, you will be "mutilated." The difference between them is time, a concept that loses all meaning without life.

It's not that you need your organs when you're dead, it's that other people want your organs and you becoming dead would be awfully convenient to that end.

I'm on the voluntary donor registry myself, but my "whacko belief" is that our civilization isn't yet civilized enough to handle an opt-out scheme, let alone a mandatory one - and if it were we wouldn't need to!

So what you are saying is that you don't think the US is as civilized as a good chunk of western europe? We've had opt-out donorship for quite a while now, and yet somehow our authoritation pinko commie cradle to grave goverments have yet to implement their "harvesting organs for fun and profit" programs.

Fact of the matter is that most people can't be bothered to give it thought until the time when either they or one of their loved ones needs a donor organ. By making it opt-out the sheep/lazy folks(I fall into the latter category) don't have to give it any thought, and for those who consider it an issue there's the option to opt-out.

Keep in mind where this is. A pretty huge amount of people actually do believe that they might need those lungs again. Personally, I think they're almost clinically insane. But that's people for you. So in denial about their own mortality that they'll look at a rotting corpse and think that he might take a turn for the better any day now.

The problem is that the charities that represent people needing transplants lie to get changes enacted to make it easier to take them without getting proper authorization. Typically they'll include not just the people that are on the list and able to take the transplant, but individuals who are on the list even if they're known to be ineligible. There's also been some disturbing changes made in that now rather than requiring the patient to be brain dead, cardiac death suffices. But probably the worst part o

But probably the worst part of it is that there isn't any guarantee that the doctor responsible for saving the individuals life isn't also the doctor for the patient that needs the transplant.

That would be extraordinarily unlikely. I suppose if you crashed your motorcycle into a barrier in front of the transplant hospital and they dragged your soon-to-be-lifeless body into the ER AND the transplant doc was moonlighting as the ER attending it could happen.

Considering the mindset of the era, this actually is a good indicator of how Jefferson and other founding fathers understood that there was something wrong with the status quo and managed to change it.

Absolutely. You would think more people on/. would be replying seriously to this article. It's incredible to think that that one ink blot had such a profound effect on the US today. Think of how much of a core element the word "citizen" has become; it's like a symbol of our freedom and unity.

Glad someone mentioned this. It's difficult for me to take the Declaration of Independence seriously when blacks didn't get rights until almost 200 years later... not to mention the plight of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.

Well, of course. It was a major change in philosophical mindset... it's PRACTICAL effect was much more limited, not the least of which because of the failings of the very same people who wrote it to implement it as they claimed they would.

Glad someone mentioned this. It's difficult for me to take the Declaration of Independence seriously when blacks didn't get rights until almost 200 years later... not to mention the plight of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.

In all fairness to Jefferson, he did have that in mind (Constitution) - along with other things that did not make it in due to the mindset of the times and those others who had input into the matter.

Oh, fuck off. It wasn't perfect, but it was a vast improvement over the status quo and we're trying to work out the rest. So our 234-year-old document didn't perfectly conform to your modern ideals - when was the last time you wrote code that lasted more than two centuries with less than 30 patches?

It's incredible to think that that one ink blot had such a profound effect on the US today.

I'm... not so sure about that. Jefferson's mindset had a profound impact on the formation of the US and its laws and liberties today, and this inkblot itself gives us insight into his thoughts, but the article itself notes that the entire line was removed from the final draft. The actual Declaration of Independence does not include this text, altered or otherwise, at all.

Never mind this changed word; what about all the changes made in the drafts that existed only in the founding fathers' minds? Sure, this finding shows some of the thought processes going on at the time, but there were plenty more that never left such direct evidence on paper, and just as important.

Most people who live in most countries are citizens rather than subjects.

You're welcome.

Parent is not a troll. Parent is pointing out that at the time "subjects" was crossed out by Jefferson, Nearly everyone on the planet was subject to a King, or if not, were not living in a level of civilization where "citizen" would be an appropriate term. Following the American Colonies' example, many other English colonies and colonies of other countries threw off their shackles, and eventually the mother-countries followed suit.

We're constantly being reminded that slashdot is no longer an 'American' site, as if we are somehow to blame for them coming here.

No, you're just expected to be civilised, worldly hosts. Acting like the US is the only country that exists on the internet is like inviting people to your house for dinner, ignoring them, and watching TV.

But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Hm, sound like the immigration mess we have today?

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

Hm, appointing unfair judges for life... Based on the will of ~0.000033667% of the people? Sound familiar?

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.

Sound familiar? DEA, Homeland Security, etc.?

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

Well, thats a bit different now, because we seem to think that there can't be any times of peace so instead we have a standing army always and find new conflicts to fight.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

Hm, people in the police force and the armed forces getting off easy for abuses of citizens, that of course has never happened in the USA... right?

For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

And today we have embargoes that not only harm our own citizens but keep some parts of the world in poverty because we disagree with their government... -cough- Cuba -cough-

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:

Lets see, Ben Franklin estimated taxes in the colonies at around 12.5%... Today we have a 15% income tax at the realistic minimum (unless you are like a kid at a summer job or something then its only 10%) and up to 35% if you are successful at what you do! Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)

All the abuses of King George III on America are very similar to the abuses we suffer under our recent presidents and congresses.

All the abuses of King George III on America are very similar to the abuses we suffer under our recent presidents and congresses.

That's because the government structure is very similar. Back then, you had a king appointed by nobody that did whatever he wanted. Nowadays, you have two puppets up for a pseudo-election, while the real legislative power is directed by people most citizens don't even know about (see Bilderberg Group for example). Since they're operating in the dark and are not elected, they also can do whatever they want.

Maybe that sounds a little bit tinfoil-hattish, but that's the most straight-forward way I could think of to explain the US government's behavior in the last decade.

You don't even need to get sounding that paranoid to see it, one needs only to look at how our federal reserve was founded (yeah, "duck hunting"...) and the large amount of agencies with nearly unlimited powers with appointed positions (FCC, FTA, DEA, DHS, etc.)

It's the internal army of agencies with essentially unlimited powers that bother me the most, along with gov't increasingly being "privatized" to give *private agencies power over other citizens*. (This is absolutely NOT the same as "privatizing" a function; it's more like setting up a gov't-sponsored mafia.)

This is, as I've pointed out before, about where Rome was around 250AD, and was probably their point of no return. We're getting there a lot faster, probably thanks to modern communications.

Much of what you said above takes things out of context or makes massive confusions about differences in scale. Let's look at two of them:

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

Well, thats a bit different now, because we seem to think that there can't be any times of peace so instead we have a standing army always and find new conflicts to fight.

You are missing the point here. The primary objection is "kept among us"- this is an objection to quartering soldiers in private homes (which was then not allowed by the Third Amendment).

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

Hm, appointing unfair judges for life... Based on the will of ~0.000033667% of the people? Sound familiar?

But that's not at all the same. The judges being objected to weren't appointed for life. They were appointed to serve at the pleasure of the King. That's a very different circumstance. Hence the phrasing " on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices."

And of course almost all your objections ignore the fact that these events have all occurred with the consent of the legislator you voted for. That's very different then when things occur by an unelected monarch and a parliament which one can't vote.

You are missing the point here. The primary objection is "kept among us"- this is an objection to quartering soldiers in private homes (which was then not allowed by the Third Amendment).

So rather than having to quarter soldiers we instead have to pay expensive monetary fees to support our imperialistic presence in almost every single country. Another main difference is that the soldiers granted by the king not only were supposed to keep the colonists in line but also to protect them against the very real threat of native American attack rather than the very vague "threat" of "terrorism" and "drugs".

So yes, we no longer have to house soldiers in our home, we have to essentially "house

That is a very dangerous mindset to have and a mindset that the founding fathers avoided like the plague. That is why we have the constitution (which is basically ignored which is why we have a government comparable to King George III which ignored the rights that colonists had as English citizens) to limit the government so it doesn't -matter- who is elected, in short the founding fathers had a version of the Debian Free Software Guidelines called the "tentacles of evil test"

"The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and, now in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot allow even the author to take away the required freedoms.

Only the founding fathers changed it a bit with limited government with the constitution basically saying:

"The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the people have voted in a dictator and, now that he/she is elected, attempts to do the worst to the citizens of the USA: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using their freedoms, to expose them to domestic or foreign harm, to make the citizens non-free, to expose all citizen's secrets, etc. The same can happen to a government bought out by a corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The constitution cannot allow even the government to take away the required freedoms.

If you look at dictators, a -lot- of them were voted in, the constitution is designed to prevent a voted-in dictator from taking freedoms. Our rights are natural rights, they should never be voted away like you are suggesting.

"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

"The world needs to be reminded that all human ills are not curable by legislation, and that quantity of statutory enactment and excess of government offer no substitute for quality of citizenship."
-- Warren G. Harding

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed."
-- H. L. Mencken

"Formerly, we suffered from crimes. Now, we suffer from laws."
-- Tacitus

And of course almost all your objections ignore the fact that these events have all occurred with the consent of the legislator you voted for. That's very different then when things occur by an unelected monarch and a parliament which one can't vote.

The legislator I voted for? What if I voted against him and he still inflicted all the aforementioned infringements on freedom on me? There's nothing less wrong about having your rights taken away because 52% of the population like it that way than because one person likes it that way - your rights are gone either way. Democracy is supposed to prevent rights from being taken away in the first place, not to justify their removal.

I'm not going to argue all of the points, either because I do agree with some, I'm simply uninformed, or I am apathetic. That said, I take issue with your characterization of the following ones.

...the Present King of Great-Britain...has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Hm, sound like the immigration mess we have today?

Nope. There's a big difference between a foreign power limiting immigration to a region, and the people of that region limiting immigration to it. We enjoy the latter today. I wouldn't say it's anything like the former.

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.

Sound familiar? DEA, Homeland Security, etc.?

When was the last time you had to feed or house a federal agent against your will? For that matter,

When was the last time you had to feed or house a federal agent against your will?

The last time I received a paycheck and a sum of money was removed to pay federal agents. Trust me, I'd rather keep that than have my "property" taken to pay federal agents against my will. I understand your point. And you either miss the point or are being deliberately obtuse. It's not that they are being done today exactly as they were then, but that the complaints themselves are valid in regards to todays government,

If it wasn't income tax, it'd be something else, because the Constitution proper gives Congress the right to make and collect taxes.

Honestly, it'd be one thing if Art. 1 Sec 8 didn't say anything, but people who keep picking nits about the 16th amendment make it sound like we wouldn't be taxed at all if it wasn't there, which is so off the mark it'd be laughable. Ok, fine, so we outlaw the income tax. Then what? I guess excise taxes and duties will have to go through the roof...they'll get passed on to us, the consumer, and we won't notice a single thing in the end except our paychecks will be larger...but so will our spending.

Not sure how this post is a troll, actually read the declaration and you will find striking similarities between the abuses of King George III and the abuses of congress today and the presidents of today. Look at the tax rates and you will see that we're taxed more today than we were under King George III! We still have taxation without representation in many ways, from taxes on minors who have no representation, to the lack of congressional representatives from territories and DC.

I would agree that the Revolution wasn't about only about, or even started by, taxes, it was about so much more (Can you imagine the government forcing you to house and feed the military?). But which of the Framers were fighting for money and power? At best, maybe some of the southern delegates, maybe Hamilton - most all of them were passionately and honestly concerned for their own liberty (and therefore, by definition, everyone's). Documents like the Federalist and the constitutional convention debate not

If I recall correctly, they still considered themselves subjects of Britain that were being mistreated, but I can see why Jefferson changed it. It would be admitting that they were seceeding from a legitimate rule despite their grievances.
And it's pretty cool how they found this too.

Yeah, in that era "citizen" had strong republican (i.e. anti-monarchist) connotations, which would be made even clearer in the revolution a few years later in France, where "Citizen so-and-so" became the common mode of greeting (to emphasize that all titles were abolished, replaced by a single title, "Citizen", that everyone possessed), and was featured prominently in such texts as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [wikipedia.org].

I don't believe it had quite as radical a connotation in 1776, but it was still a clear shift from "grievances of subjects who feel their king is unjust" (which was the sentiment of some of the colonists) to a more explicit declaration of anti-monarchism.

The editing of the word "subject" emphasizes the founders care to make sure that the US government be of the people, that we should not be subject to any tyranny but rather citizens with representation. Good time of year for the reminder.

Since the actual ability within the populace to write went missing years ago (image the Constitution as a tweet), and since today's culture may not know this, let me be reiterate that the document was 'drafted', meaning the author wrote and thought at the same time. It used to be a common practice to write a statement, and then to consider it in context with the expectation that changes were likely to occur. This doesn't mean he f'd up or someone was holding a gun to his head forcing him to change his mind.

Thinking about what you write and why and how it should be cached for your audience used to be a worthwhile goal.

Now we have made the transition from Citizens back to Subjects of our Federal Empire. In many cases we can't even travel within our own state's boundaries without having to present our identification and travel papers to a Federal Officer and get their permission to make the trip.
We could probably solve the energy crisis if we could tap into the founding fathers continuous spinning in their graves....

What the hell does that have to do with a "Federal empire"? Christ, that's *specifically* a state-level law, enacted by a state, on behalf of the state's people. It's literally the antithesis of federalism (as the term is typically used in the US).

Because if you ask supporters of the Arizona law they specifically point out that it is to get Arizona's laws up to the level of the federal laws. Whether or not you really believe them or not is one story but if you ask the supporters of it, that is what they say.

And as to the hoorah coming out of the pro-illegals in California, this was posted elswhere:

======WITH THE FUROR IN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE OVER THE ARIZONA LAW, IT BEHOOVES ME TO POINT OUT THE FOLLOWING FROM THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE.

TO WIT:

Section 834b in the California Penal Code:

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United St

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.

The founding fathers (particularly Jefferson) knew that this would happen, from including the second amendment which, contrary to popular belief didn't give us the right to bear arms because the founding fathers wanted us to go deer hunting but rather as a last resort to oppose government force. In fact Jefferson was reported to say that every generation needed its own revolution along with quotes such as

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

and

I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.

The founding fathers knew that this apathy would happen because it did, it was the entire reason

When you compare something like a security checkpoint prior to plane boarding (which is what you're trying to refer to here, I assume?) to something like being a subject of your government, you really dilute the value of making such a comparison in the future.

Well, First, I think using the term 'security' in relation to a TSA checkpoint shows an incredible level of naivete. They exist for theatre and pacification of the ignorant masses (and of course to keep TSA personnel employed) but not in reality for security. Second, its a incredibly valid example of the Federal government's steady push to supercede the rights and responsibilities of the states, just like the Department of Education, FDA, etc... None of these has any basis in the Constitution. There's no

If he kept in the paragraph banning slavery, we probably would have 13 independent countries rather than any sort of union, especially for the southern states which required the extra labor for agriculture. The founding fathers all had to make compromises in order to get the thing passed, otherwise we would still be a confederacy of independent states. (No, I'm not talking about the CSA, I'm talking about having 13 independent nations with a loose affiliation)

ROFL, wow, interesting take... the south favoured slavery, not because they were filthy bigots who felt Africans were inferior, but simply because the poor bastards "required the extra labor for agriculture".

Right, because we all know how the north loved their Africans right? Everyone thought that the African race was inferior to the European races whether in the north, south, in Europe, etc. for quite some time.

ROFL, wow, interesting take... the south favoured slavery, not because they were filthy bigots who felt Africans were inferior, but simply because the poor bastards "required the extra labor for agriculture".

The abolition of slavery moved very slowly even in the North.

The percentage of colonists - all races and both sexes - who arrived as slaves, prisoners, or more or less voluntarily indentured servants, was around 1/3.

1777 Vermont Republic (constitution)1780 Pennsylvania "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery" Frees adult children of slaves born after 1780.1783 Massachusetts (judicial decision - state constitutional law)1783 -1784 New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island (children of slaves) (statute)1799 -1804 New York, New Jersey (children of slaves) (statute)1817 New York - emancipation for all slaves on July 4, 18271827 New York Children born of slaves between 1799 and 1827 are indentured until age 25 (females) or age 28 (males)1847 Slavery ends in Pennsylvania. Those born before 1780 are freed - perhaps 100 surviving.

From the beginning, the plantation South was raising labor-intensive, non-edible, non-perishable, crops for the export trade. It was one of the few sources of hard currency - gold and silver - the colonies possessed. Which matters if you are seriously bent on waging a war against Great Britain.

Just this morning I was listening to an interview with a Jefferson historian who explained that Jefferson was unable to find a solution to the slavery issue. He realised that his lack of opposition to slavery would be a negative part of his legacy. For the interested: New Books in History [newbooksinhistory.com].

No doubt it was changed because someone pointed out to Jefferson that it was grammatically incorrect. Or rather, simply the incorrect word to use, by definition.

People at the time were used to referring to themselves as "subjects" of the English king. But if you no longer have a king, then you are no longer a subject. There is no need to assume it is any more complicated than that.

No, the surprising bit was that it was a pretty instantaneous change. You can't exactly write something in ink, give it a formal review and then erase what you want changed; you'd redraft it. With that timeline, the first draft, say, v0.1, would have 'subject' in it. They'd review it and replace it with 'citizen' in v0.2.

But what happened here was 'subject' was down, in ink, erased (well...wiped off) and replaced with 'citizen' for the v0.1 relea